I'm not convinced you care about the future either. There are much more important problems than global warming such as overpopulation, poverty, destruction of arable land, habitat destruction, corruption of human society, nuclear proliferation, and environmental pollution. A key problem with climate change mitigation is that these greater problems are routinely compromised for token efforts in climate change mitigation.
No, the key problem here is don't understand the wide range of consequences and impacts climate change will have. Overpopulation is an issue that will be made much worse by climate change (migration). Poverty will be made worse by climate change. Arable land destruction will be made worse (already seeing some of that and it's only going downhill from there). Habitat destruction will be worse (goes without saying). So on and so forth.
Humans are terrible when it comes to assessing long range threats. Most people simply have no concept of how much everything today relies on our formerly stable climate. When you hear those estimates of trillions, it's not some off the cuff number. Really smart people sat down and researched the chain of consequences.
Worse, this isn't a problem we can magically make "go away". At best it would take decades of dedicated effort to undo the damage of the past 150 or so years. So when we get to that "oh shit" moment, not only are we ill equipped to actually do anything about, there will be an additional several decades after that where things will get worse due to the lag in the climate system.
If we deal with these other problems, then untrammeled climate change is not a big deal. Human societies, particularly modern ones readily adapt to conditions that changed on the centuries long time scales we speak of. If we don't deal with these problems because we're putting our resources in preventing climate change instead, we would still face disaster.
Bullshit. All it would take is a slightly altered change to mid-level jet stream patterns and most of humanity would be seriously fucked. The largest food exporters on the planet rely on a stable climate to produce said food. The small percent of arable land that produces most of the world's food is within a narrow band of latitudes. A small change and bam, drought. We already had a small taste of that when Russia ceased exports a few years ago due to extreme heat and drought. Imagine if the same thing were to occur in the US midwest where the aquifers are already pretty much exhausted.
Human societies have FAILED in the face of regional climate changes. Entire empires have collapsed due to drought. Computers and iPhones are not edible.
The status quo does a good job of fixing these other problems while climate change mitigation efforts have been notorious for being harmful and counterproductive, prioritizing extremely weak climate change mitigation over the bigger problems.
I think the fundamental bankruptcy of your beliefs is that you can't show that your so-called "give a damn" is better than doing absolutely nothing. It's not fair to the people who don't think so much about the future, when you do and come up with ideas worse than doing nothing.
More BS. Other than a couple countries who have gone ahead with renewable initiatives jack shit has been done to reduce the carbon footprint, as evidenced by the never ending increase in atmospheric CO2. It's a global problem, and requires global solutions but we're to socially retarded as a species to work on that scale.
Check that, some organizations like the US military that actually do make long term plans have been preparing mitigation efforts. They're realists. They know nothing will be done about it, so might as well be ready when the shit hits the fan.
You confuse rich people with flashy people. There are plenty of wealthy people who don't flaunt their wealth in this manner. It's never good to rub people's faces in the fact that maybe you have something they don't. Nothing good ever comes of it. And there are plenty of people who own the "bling" and can't really afford it, living beyond their means for as long as they can keep up the juggling act. Never judge a book by its cover.
Precisely. I'm quite well off, but you'd never know it by just looking at me or where I live. I could easily afford a McMansion in a ritzy part of town, but I choose to live in a normal middle class house in a normal middle class neighborhood. I could have a couple of new Mercedes, BMW's, or Lexus's but I have couple of moderately aged Prius's. I could be wearing expensive brands of clothes, jewlery, etc. but I wear old jeans and shirts.
There are flashy people, and there are rich flashy people. But I'd be willing to be a large percentage of "rich" people you wouldn't be able to pick out of a normal crowd/neighborhood. They didn't get rich by buying expensive homes/cars/etc.
I was introduced to programming when I was a sophmore in college. There was a course on 3D programming using the new API called OpenGL that sounded interesting.
Ever have one of those things that just seemed to naturally click for you? That's what it was like. Took to it like a fish to water. Just regret it took me so long. But it's not like everyone or every school had a computer back then.
If I may speak for a second on behalf of everyone in the rest of the world...
America, you have just shy of 325 million residents. I don't know how many of those are natural-born residents eligible to run for US President, but I assume the percentage is fairly high. Let's say at least 275 million people. How is it that from such a huge number that these are the best people you could come up with???
You guys really need to dig deeper for political talent. We in the outside world are getting worried about you if the current crop of clowns is the best you can find!
Yaz
Let me help you a little with that.
First, you're approaching the problem completely wrong. Sure, the constitution has a minimum set of requirements to be electable as president but no one takes that seriously. The first and most important requirement to run for president is money. Lot's of money. That narrows it down to a couple percent of the population. Then you have to narrow it further by looking into who would actually want the job and the scrutiny it brings, which most don't want. Then there's the "favors" and political clout, which again most don't have. We have two major political parties that have effectively created barriers so high that most couldn't cross them to even be considered a candidate. Etc.
At the end of the day you wind up with a very small group of people to select from. And when you've got a bunch of people who have been subjected to crap political games for pretty much the past 16 years, you get a lot of anger and resentment (not to mention apathy). That's a perfect recipe for creating an election like the one that's shaping: an egomaniacal podium thumping idiot stoking and feeding of the anger of the population and a quasi-corrupt fixture representing the status quo.
Saw this coming from a mile away. So did a lot of others. Just didn't expect it to be so soon.
I did some looking into the effects of solar changes on global and solar-system temperatures, because I wondered how much of an effect it might have, if any...
You didn't do shit. Your conclusions are garbage, and contradict basic solar observations (solar output has been dropping, not increasing). You provide no sources or citations. You provide no verifiable evidence. You provide no methodology, error analysis, or pretty much anything else you'd expect to find in any sort of research.
There are plenty of real scientists providing real research on the topic. Start there, then try again.
...when they tell about their weird and bizarre conspiracy theories. The brains have been infected by Hollywood.
As this article points out, there's still a good chunk of tech that hasn't been changed for decades even in critical systems. There's no super 'leet next age UI. There's a monochrome monitor with a prompt that says "feed-the-badger>" with a tape drive and an 8" floppy.
If ain't broke and has 1200 pages of mimeographed documentation then it's still good.
This is really stupid. Fitbit has never claimed that their products were ECGs. The heart rate is an estimate, and the estimate can be greatly impacted based on a large number of factors. It's a freakin' optical sensor. Everything from dried sweat to lose bands to body hair can interfere with the measurement.
They're activity trackers. They're supposed to help track your general activities across over the course of a day, not give you a detailed medical diagnostic on your heart rate. They're an estimation tool to help you manage your activity, calories etc. They don't need to be (and are not) 100% accurate, but as long as they are in the ballpark they can help you get fit.
If you're overweight or have a fitbit and aren't getting healthier, the problem is NOT because it's off when measuring your heart rate.
Bill Nye is as much a climate scientist as Al Gore. He has a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering and used to work for Boeing. Yes, he is billed as a "science educator," but he gets his information on "climate change" the same way the rest of us do, from the MSM. Getting your information from Oprah Winfrey or Judge Judy is just as valid.
No, unlike you he does actually research the material. And really, at a basic level the physics, chemistry, math, etc. is simple enough that even a high school AP student could get through it.
You don't need a Ph.d to understand the basic mechanisms involved.
You are completely missing the point. This isn't about left or right. It's about trademark.
For example, you can't just take some trademarked item, make some merchandise, and sell it. It doesn't matter if it's Mickey Mouse, Coca-Cola, or Bernie Sanders. If there is an established trademark, you need to get permission first.
This isn't even a story. It'd be like some random schmuck making and selling Star Wars related merchandise without getting permission.
How much of that is caused by man, and more importantly, how much will be caused by man in the next hundred years or so, has not been established. The models that purport to be predictive disagree with one another; disagree with the actual observed climate; offer no precursor climate event that shores up their ideas; suffer from precursor climate events that contradict their ideas; and are almost certain to be massively disrupted by technological change even if they were spot on WRT today's conditions anyway.
This is pure nonsense. There is a rather large and voluminous work exactly on this subject, called the IPCC report complete with a full list of references to peer reviewed scientific research. From that one source you can dive into as much detail as you want about the models, modeling, errors, unknowns, assumptions, etc.
Folks have to understand that, and figure out how they are going to deal with that. Do they want the public to bear those costs? Do they want the victims of terrorism to bear those costs?"
I just did some googling. Apparently the number of people who die by terrorism from now back to 2001 is absolutely dwarfed by the number of people who day every year from automobile accidents, mostly caused by allowing cars to be driven by error prone, inferior, humans.
Anyone who thinks terrorism is a serious threat is just plain fucking stupid. You're orders of magnitude more likely to be murdered by some random jackass than you are to be killed by a terrorist.
Seven of the top ten serious threats to American lives are diseases, with heart disease killing over a million of us a year. Then we have suicides and car accidents killing tens of thousands a year. I'm orders of magnitudes more likely to die tripping and falling down my stairs than to die from a terrorist attack.
And yet I don't see Jimbo here demanding broad sweeping powers and huge budgets to hire jack-booted thugs to take down the local Dunkin' Donuts. I don't see a "War On Cheeseburgers", or a code red emergency when a fast food restaurant opens. Why is that Jimmy? Why the fear mongering over something that has less chances of killing me than being hit by a meteor? Why should I allow a government agency KGB like levels of power when there's a million other things that are far more likely to end my life on any given day?
People like him are either complete idiots or think the rest of us are.
So If he is really investigating the spread of ignorance, why did he use a religious term of "denier" to explain people that doubt climate change is as dire as some report?
Because it's not a religious term. It's an accurate description.
A skeptic is someone who willingly goes forth to further educate themselves about the topic in order to make their case stronger. A denier is someone who is willfully ignorant and has absolutely zero interests in further researching a topic. A scientist, by nature, is a skeptic.
How about a concrete example? Someone tells a skeptic that the stove is hot. The skeptic doesn't think so, so he/she goes about figuring out whether or not the stove is actually hot. They hover their hand over the surface, put a thermometer on it, etc. and, as a result of this information the skeptic finds agreement with the person that the stove is hot.
Now someone tells a denier that the stove is hot. The denier will never ever believe the stove is hot. Even when they burn their hand on the stove, they will deny that the stove is hot. Instead, they will concoct some bizarre story to explain why their hand got burnt that will include anything but the fact the stove is hot. Physics be damned. Thermodynamics be damned. The stove is not hot!
It's quite easy to tell the difference between a denier and a skeptic, regardless of the scientific topic.
Tax breaks paid for 60% of my solar system. The only way it made economic sense.
That's because solar installers bent you over and you didn't even know it was happening. Check out online for system kits equivalent to yours, then figure out the actual installation cost. I'll give you a hint, the largest cost of a solar panel system these days is NOT the solar panels.
...People are gonna claim it's proof that renewables don't work.
As an electrical engineer that works for a company that installs solar systems, they don't work. Well, when you add the government subsidies, that we all pay for in taxes, they're only bad instead of horrible.
Well, that just puts them in the company of oil, gas, and every other government subsidized energy industry then doesn't it?
Assume the average home uses 1MW per month. That's about a 7KW system for 100%. A 7KW system is going to run you around $11K-$12K for materials. If you're lucky enough to be in a state where solar companies aren't running a racket in conjuction with the state government (i.e. you're allowed to mount your own panels and then pay an electrician to connect the system), actual installation cost is a few hours on the roof with a friend or two and maybe a $1K-$2K to state certified electrician. Even without rebates the system easily pays for itself.
If you're unlucky and live in a state where you're required by law to use a "certified installer", even with subsidies you'll be lucky to break even. These "certified installers" bought and paid for this legislation, so you can be sure it isn't going to be good. And it isn't. In my state for example (Maryland), the cost of actual system installation is almost twice as much as the system itself. My last set of quotes I got for installing a system similar to the 7KW I system I mentioned above ranged from $30K to $35K total price (or you could "lease" which screws you over even more, which is why they push that option harder than an inner city crack dealer). That's just plain fucking ridiculous. When I asked for justification for the outrageous installation costs I get the "Installing a solar panel system is very complex and requires deep technical knowledge" line of crap, which I'm quick to point out is nothing but pure bullshit. Mounting panels to a roof requires the deep technical skills of being able to use a measuring tape and a drill. Wiring the panels together requires the vast experience of being able to plug something in. The only part of the system that requires anything beyond ordinary Joe Sixpack skills is hooking up the inverter. I've seen IKEA manuals more complex than solar installation kit instructions.
So if you live in a state where you're actually allowed to mount your own panels, solar works just fine. It'll pay for itself in a few years, and gives you an excuse to have a couple of friends over for an afternoon or two of home improvement. If you live in state where you're required to have a certified installer, then it's a lot more questionable.
Even more curious (to me) are the different responses: - Arctic ice is shrinking: CLEARLY THIS IS GLOBAL WARMING. - Antarctic ice is growing: (shrug) we really don't have any idea why this is happening I guess we'll just have to figure it out (shrug, again)
Bullshit. Antarctic ice increases were predicted as a result of warming several decades ago. Are you that ignorant of physics? Let me help you then.
Arctic ice is floating in the ocean. Every winter it freezes, every summer it melts. To reduce the amount of ice in the arctic, you need an increase in heat. To greatly reduce the amount of ice in the arctic, you need a lot of heat. Why? Because the salinity in the arctic remains about the same, so any large increase or decrease in ice is a result of disparity in energy.
Antarctic ice is also floating in the ocean. However, there is massive ice sheet on top of a landmass in the center. So ice extent can change by two different causes. The first is the same as the arctic: heat. The second is changes in salinity. Less saline water freezes at higher temperatures.
In the Antarctic, increased heat leads to increase melting of land ice. The influx of fresh water decreases the salinity of the surrounding ocean (observed). A decrease in salinity means ice can form at higher temperatures. Thus, instead of the ice line being capped at 28F, it can push to 29F. As the salinity continues to decrease, the ice line can push even higher until it reaches a maximum of 32F. As temps continue to warm, that 32F line moves further south so the ice extent starts decreasing again.
In short, Antarctic ice is expected to continue expanding until the salinity min/temperature max lines meet, at which point further warming will result in a net decrease of extent due to the increase freshwater runoff from the Antarctic land ice.
The fact that you jump from "billions" to "nobody" is, essentially, what "histrionic exaggeration" means. There's a huge fucking amount of numbers between 0 and >2,000,000,000.
Just pull out your calculator, for god's sake. There are 7 billions people on the planet at the moment. The odds that at least 25% of them will die (i.e. "billions") because of a projected global increase of 4 Celsius in temperature over a century would require a lot more explanation and hard data than what has been provided so far to be considered anything than ludicrous.
No, it really doesn't. The problem here is that you have absolutely no idea what 4C of global temperature increase represents. That increase in global energy budget makes the world's nuclear arsenal look like a mosquito fart in Cat 5 hurricane. Not being able to see how something of that magnitude couldn't lay waste to a quarter of the world's population (most of which live in poverty with already limited access to food and water) is either abhorrent ignorance on near incomprehensible stupidity.
There's plenty of evidence what havoc even regional climate changes can cause to human civilization, and those were much smaller than what's expected. Entire civilizations have collapsed in just a few years of drought, and you're seriously deluded if you think our modern technology is advanced enough to stave of a multi-year severe drought in a major agricultural region. And that's if we're talking about a place like the US.
Just look at a fucking map and see where the bulk of those 7 billions people live, how the fuck is such a slow change supposed to kill them all?
You're joking right? Here's a simple example. Climate patterns shift making what limited arable land we have into barren dust fields. Food prices skyrocket. Fresh water becomes a scarce commodity. Can you not think of one thing that could happen under those circumstances that would result in lots of people dying? If the famine and disease doesn't kill them, then the inevitable wars will.
This is the kind of bullshit number that people make up as a scare tactic, like"1/3 of women will be raped in their lifetime". It doesn't help take the climate change proponents seriously, it actually make them look like liars to those who are not convinced that there's a problem.
You're a child of the first world who apparently can't see anything beyond your TV screen. Civilization is always 3 meals and 24 hours away from collapse. When people think they have nothing left to lose, then bad shit starts happening.
There's no scare tactic being employed here. Climate projections show a different world emerging as a direct result of our activities. We either take steps now to reduce the extent of the changes and adapt to them or we do nothing until physics rams the inevitable down our collective throats and we reap the consequences.
This kind of tactic is harmful to the cause. The more you try to scare people with end of the world scenarios, the less they listen because this has been tried many times before (acid rains, ozone layer, GMO, etc.) and the world did not end.
It's not a tactic. It's science. Acid rain and ozone depletion were both phenomena that were addressed thanks to science pointing out that those were serious issues and people actually listening. Same thing with asbestos, smoking, leaded gasoline, and a host of other such issues.
Do you want to know what they all had in common though? Big business funding FUD campaigns to discredit the science. It took years to decades before anything was done on most of these issues as a direct result. It's no different with climate change. Hell, even some of the same propaganda companies are being employed. It's like I've been watching the same show on repeat, only with different actors. Ever see the movie "Thank You For Smoking"? It's practically a documentary about these companies.
I'm looking forward to giant walls and all Muslims wearing yellow crescents with stars so they can be easily identified "for our safety". And those free hoodies they're going to give out. Too bad they're only available in white. Oh, and those lovely pine scented crosses you can burn in your neighborhood to freshen the air. Those'll be nice too.
The modern environment includes dirty weapons delivered in a suitcase, by groups that know a nuclear response is impossible.
You are seriously naive if you think a nuclear responses are impossible. A real nuclear attack on American soil would represent a clear a present danger to millions. The response would be to turn entire regions in the Middle East into glass parking lots. The panicked masses would be begging for it.
Two jets flown into buildings illicited two major military campaigns that are still ongoing to this day. A nuclear attack would be more than enough justification (at least for our people) to launch a nuclear response.
They have little to lose in such an attack, and much to gain. So yes, the chances of a nuclear attack on US soil are greater now.
They have plenty to lose and nothing to gain. The US has more than enough warheads (and I'm sure we could spin production back up if we needed to) to turn any Middle Eastern country and country(s) that support them into irradiated wastelands. You don't cross the nuclear line.
1.Offer tech jobs the pay below the standard of living for the area. 2. Complain you can't find qualified engineers to fill your positions. 3. Get more H1-Bs who don't know any better to fill positions. 4. Profit.
Or we could compute this another way: - There is no global warming, and we do nothing, and we all live happily with a strong economy
Except for the resource depletion, pollution etc. that will lead to life sucking and already has led to life sucking for parts of the globe. Our way of life is not sustainable. It never has been, and it's only going to get worse as other countries ramp up and start wanting a piece of "the good life".
Strong economy? You must not be paying attention. Most of the wealth has accumulated in the top few percent of the population. That is an incredibly bad thing to have happen in a consumer driven economy. Worse, outsourcing and automation are tearing chunks out of the middle class. That is also a bad thing for a consumer driven economy. What happens to a capitalist system when the majority of the population no longer has money to spend?
- There is no warming, and we spend $trillions in shifting the economy from cheap oil to expensive wind and solar, life sucks
Where the hell are you getting your numbers from? Renewables are practically on par with fossil fuel sources and , unlike oil, will still be around in 50 years and quite likely will be even cheaper and more efficient. They also pollute a whole lot less.
- There is global warming, and we do nothing, and we end up spending $trillions to adjust to the new climate, life sucks
And who's fault is that? This isn't some new problem that just appeared out of the ether. Scientists have known that global warming would be a result of the massive re-introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere for over a century. We should have started addressing this issue 30 years ago, and every year we delay meaningful action adds even more costs.
No, life won't suck (as much) if we adapt in time. If we don't, then yes life will suck.
- There is global warming, and we spend $trillions to stop it, life sucks
Stop? We are a long ways past being able to "stop" global warming. We could all switch to 100% renewables with 0 carbon emissions and the planet will continue to warm for quite some time. It's like a ball rolling down a hill; it doesn't stop just because it got to the bottom.
This option of yours doesn't exist.
Your information is flawed, and therefore your options and resulting conclusions are flawed. There are no winning scenarios here. We either do nothing and life sucks, or we do something and life sucks less. We've already passed the point of no return. The climate system is already destabilized, and we have neither the technology nor the global will to get it back on track.
This raises the question of climate change. It should be conveyed and understood that we are in a phase of “icehouse earth” that is abnormally cool for the planet. While this phase has lasted the entirety of human civilization and would have drastic consequences for many species should it end, it must be understood that temperatures and CO2 levels have normally been far higher, and the industrial contribution is relatively tiny.
No it doesn't raise a question about climate change. Why do you think humans exist independent of the climate system? The climate switching to the "hothouse" Earth would summarily cause an extinction event with an extremely high likelihood of taking us with it. That's the whole point.
Your argument of "in the past" is completely irrelevant to present day. The current biodiversity (which has been precipitously plummeting as of late) is based on the current climate. Our species depends on the current climate. Our arable regions and crops depend on the current climate. Our coastal regions depend on the current climate. If you want to do a historical comparison, look at what happen whenever there is a significant global climate divergence.
We find that CO2 emissions [during the Cretaceous] resulting from super-plume tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm.”
Until the past two centuries, the concentrations of CO2... had never exceeded about 280 ppm... Current concentrations of CO2 are about 390 ppm...
Those "super-plumes" were part of a massive extinction event that continued for millions of years. Then it took millions of years for bio-diversity to recovery.Then it millions more for us to climb down out of the trees. During all that time there were occasional extinction events. Finally, 50,000 years ago or so modern humans showed up and were doing doing relatively well until about 10,000-20,000 years ago when (again) another major climate shift occurred and almost wiped us of the face of the Earth.
The relevant point here is that when climate shifts happen, regardless of cause, it is detrimental to the current life on the planet. It is extremely naive to think that our technology has advanced to the point where such climate shifts wouldn't severely impact our species.
“We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present carbon dioxide level. When you have high amounts of carbon dioxide in an atmosphere up to a certain limit, which is considerably higher than it is now, the result is green plants grow very much better... And it is precisely at this time that the recovery from the first dinosaur extinction takes place.
And that took MILLIONS.OF.YEARS. In the meantime, 75% of the species that existed at the time were wiped out. Not to mention the fact that large swaths of the Earth would become inhospitable to human life if temperatures were 6C-8C warmer or the other negative impacts that go along with higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
The rest of your ludicrous arguments all fail for the exact same reason. You seem to think a warmer planet/higher CO2 level is a good thing while completely ignoring the global devastation it took to get to those conditions. That seems to the thing you just don't get. We have not lived in hot house conditions. Our crops have not lived in hot house conditions. The current life on this planet has not lived in hot house conditions.
Even in our own short history, even regional climate disruptions were enough to destroy civilizations. If you think a major climate shift of any kind will simply be just all unicorns and rainbows for the human raise you're either incredibly stupid or incredibly naive.
This is one of the most biased headlines I've seen around recently. This isn't journalism, the headline is literally telling you what to think of the law instead of just stating the facts of it.
The headline correctly describes the law. It IS draconian.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not convinced you care about the future either. There are much more important problems than global warming such as overpopulation, poverty, destruction of arable land, habitat destruction, corruption of human society, nuclear proliferation, and environmental pollution. A key problem with climate change mitigation is that these greater problems are routinely compromised for token efforts in climate change mitigation.
No, the key problem here is don't understand the wide range of consequences and impacts climate change will have. Overpopulation is an issue that will be made much worse by climate change (migration). Poverty will be made worse by climate change. Arable land destruction will be made worse (already seeing some of that and it's only going downhill from there). Habitat destruction will be worse (goes without saying). So on and so forth.
Humans are terrible when it comes to assessing long range threats. Most people simply have no concept of how much everything today relies on our formerly stable climate. When you hear those estimates of trillions, it's not some off the cuff number. Really smart people sat down and researched the chain of consequences.
Worse, this isn't a problem we can magically make "go away". At best it would take decades of dedicated effort to undo the damage of the past 150 or so years. So when we get to that "oh shit" moment, not only are we ill equipped to actually do anything about, there will be an additional several decades after that where things will get worse due to the lag in the climate system.
If we deal with these other problems, then untrammeled climate change is not a big deal. Human societies, particularly modern ones readily adapt to conditions that changed on the centuries long time scales we speak of. If we don't deal with these problems because we're putting our resources in preventing climate change instead, we would still face disaster.
Bullshit. All it would take is a slightly altered change to mid-level jet stream patterns and most of humanity would be seriously fucked. The largest food exporters on the planet rely on a stable climate to produce said food. The small percent of arable land that produces most of the world's food is within a narrow band of latitudes. A small change and bam, drought. We already had a small taste of that when Russia ceased exports a few years ago due to extreme heat and drought. Imagine if the same thing were to occur in the US midwest where the aquifers are already pretty much exhausted.
Human societies have FAILED in the face of regional climate changes. Entire empires have collapsed due to drought. Computers and iPhones are not edible.
The status quo does a good job of fixing these other problems while climate change mitigation efforts have been notorious for being harmful and counterproductive, prioritizing extremely weak climate change mitigation over the bigger problems.
I think the fundamental bankruptcy of your beliefs is that you can't show that your so-called "give a damn" is better than doing absolutely nothing. It's not fair to the people who don't think so much about the future, when you do and come up with ideas worse than doing nothing.
More BS. Other than a couple countries who have gone ahead with renewable initiatives jack shit has been done to reduce the carbon footprint, as evidenced by the never ending increase in atmospheric CO2. It's a global problem, and requires global solutions but we're to socially retarded as a species to work on that scale.
Check that, some organizations like the US military that actually do make long term plans have been preparing mitigation efforts. They're realists. They know nothing will be done about it, so might as well be ready when the shit hits the fan.
You confuse rich people with flashy people. There are plenty of wealthy people who don't flaunt their wealth in this manner. It's never good to rub people's faces in the fact that maybe you have something they don't. Nothing good ever comes of it. And there are plenty of people who own the "bling" and can't really afford it, living beyond their means for as long as they can keep up the juggling act. Never judge a book by its cover.
Precisely. I'm quite well off, but you'd never know it by just looking at me or where I live. I could easily afford a McMansion in a ritzy part of town, but I choose to live in a normal middle class house in a normal middle class neighborhood. I could have a couple of new Mercedes, BMW's, or Lexus's but I have couple of moderately aged Prius's. I could be wearing expensive brands of clothes, jewlery, etc. but I wear old jeans and shirts.
There are flashy people, and there are rich flashy people. But I'd be willing to be a large percentage of "rich" people you wouldn't be able to pick out of a normal crowd/neighborhood. They didn't get rich by buying expensive homes/cars/etc.
I was introduced to programming when I was a sophmore in college. There was a course on 3D programming using the new API called OpenGL that sounded interesting.
Ever have one of those things that just seemed to naturally click for you? That's what it was like. Took to it like a fish to water. Just regret it took me so long. But it's not like everyone or every school had a computer back then.
If I may speak for a second on behalf of everyone in the rest of the world...
America, you have just shy of 325 million residents. I don't know how many of those are natural-born residents eligible to run for US President, but I assume the percentage is fairly high. Let's say at least 275 million people. How is it that from such a huge number that these are the best people you could come up with???
You guys really need to dig deeper for political talent. We in the outside world are getting worried about you if the current crop of clowns is the best you can find!
Yaz
Let me help you a little with that.
First, you're approaching the problem completely wrong. Sure, the constitution has a minimum set of requirements to be electable as president but no one takes that seriously. The first and most important requirement to run for president is money. Lot's of money. That narrows it down to a couple percent of the population. Then you have to narrow it further by looking into who would actually want the job and the scrutiny it brings, which most don't want. Then there's the "favors" and political clout, which again most don't have. We have two major political parties that have effectively created barriers so high that most couldn't cross them to even be considered a candidate. Etc.
At the end of the day you wind up with a very small group of people to select from. And when you've got a bunch of people who have been subjected to crap political games for pretty much the past 16 years, you get a lot of anger and resentment (not to mention apathy). That's a perfect recipe for creating an election like the one that's shaping: an egomaniacal podium thumping idiot stoking and feeding of the anger of the population and a quasi-corrupt fixture representing the status quo.
Saw this coming from a mile away. So did a lot of others. Just didn't expect it to be so soon.
I did some looking into the effects of solar changes on global and solar-system temperatures, because I wondered how much of an effect it might have, if any...
You didn't do shit. Your conclusions are garbage, and contradict basic solar observations (solar output has been dropping, not increasing). You provide no sources or citations. You provide no verifiable evidence. You provide no methodology, error analysis, or pretty much anything else you'd expect to find in any sort of research.
There are plenty of real scientists providing real research on the topic. Start there, then try again.
...when they tell about their weird and bizarre conspiracy theories. The brains have been infected by Hollywood.
As this article points out, there's still a good chunk of tech that hasn't been changed for decades even in critical systems. There's no super 'leet next age UI. There's a monochrome monitor with a prompt that says "feed-the-badger>" with a tape drive and an 8" floppy.
If ain't broke and has 1200 pages of mimeographed documentation then it's still good.
This is really stupid. Fitbit has never claimed that their products were ECGs. The heart rate is an estimate, and the estimate can be greatly impacted based on a large number of factors. It's a freakin' optical sensor. Everything from dried sweat to lose bands to body hair can interfere with the measurement.
They're activity trackers. They're supposed to help track your general activities across over the course of a day, not give you a detailed medical diagnostic on your heart rate. They're an estimation tool to help you manage your activity, calories etc. They don't need to be (and are not) 100% accurate, but as long as they are in the ballpark they can help you get fit.
If you're overweight or have a fitbit and aren't getting healthier, the problem is NOT because it's off when measuring your heart rate.
Bill Nye is as much a climate scientist as Al Gore. He has a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering and used to work for Boeing. Yes, he is billed as a "science educator," but he gets his information on "climate change" the same way the rest of us do, from the MSM. Getting your information from Oprah Winfrey or Judge Judy is just as valid.
No, unlike you he does actually research the material. And really, at a basic level the physics, chemistry, math, etc. is simple enough that even a high school AP student could get through it.
You don't need a Ph.d to understand the basic mechanisms involved.
Islam is the Scientology of the Dark Ages - created by evil men to control other men and (especially) women. Don't make excises to defend this lie !
Ever read the old testament? There isn't a hell of a lot a difference between the atrocities there and those found in the Koran. Same theme's too.
If you think the Jewish and Christian religions are based on rainbows and kittens then you really haven't read the Torah/Bible/etc.
You are completely missing the point. This isn't about left or right. It's about trademark.
For example, you can't just take some trademarked item, make some merchandise, and sell it. It doesn't matter if it's Mickey Mouse, Coca-Cola, or Bernie Sanders. If there is an established trademark, you need to get permission first.
This isn't even a story. It'd be like some random schmuck making and selling Star Wars related merchandise without getting permission.
This is pure nonsense. There is a rather large and voluminous work exactly on this subject, called the IPCC report complete with a full list of references to peer reviewed scientific research. From that one source you can dive into as much detail as you want about the models, modeling, errors, unknowns, assumptions, etc.
I just did some googling. Apparently the number of people who die by terrorism from now back to 2001 is absolutely dwarfed by the number of people who day every year from automobile accidents, mostly caused by allowing cars to be driven by error prone, inferior, humans.
Anyone who thinks terrorism is a serious threat is just plain fucking stupid. You're orders of magnitude more likely to be murdered by some random jackass than you are to be killed by a terrorist.
Seven of the top ten serious threats to American lives are diseases, with heart disease killing over a million of us a year. Then we have suicides and car accidents killing tens of thousands a year. I'm orders of magnitudes more likely to die tripping and falling down my stairs than to die from a terrorist attack.
And yet I don't see Jimbo here demanding broad sweeping powers and huge budgets to hire jack-booted thugs to take down the local Dunkin' Donuts. I don't see a "War On Cheeseburgers", or a code red emergency when a fast food restaurant opens. Why is that Jimmy? Why the fear mongering over something that has less chances of killing me than being hit by a meteor? Why should I allow a government agency KGB like levels of power when there's a million other things that are far more likely to end my life on any given day?
People like him are either complete idiots or think the rest of us are.
So If he is really investigating the spread of ignorance, why did he use a religious term of "denier" to explain people that doubt climate change is as dire as some report?
Because it's not a religious term. It's an accurate description.
A skeptic is someone who willingly goes forth to further educate themselves about the topic in order to make their case stronger. A denier is someone who is willfully ignorant and has absolutely zero interests in further researching a topic. A scientist, by nature, is a skeptic.
How about a concrete example? Someone tells a skeptic that the stove is hot. The skeptic doesn't think so, so he/she goes about figuring out whether or not the stove is actually hot. They hover their hand over the surface, put a thermometer on it, etc. and, as a result of this information the skeptic finds agreement with the person that the stove is hot.
Now someone tells a denier that the stove is hot. The denier will never ever believe the stove is hot. Even when they burn their hand on the stove, they will deny that the stove is hot. Instead, they will concoct some bizarre story to explain why their hand got burnt that will include anything but the fact the stove is hot. Physics be damned. Thermodynamics be damned. The stove is not hot!
It's quite easy to tell the difference between a denier and a skeptic, regardless of the scientific topic.
You kidding?
Tax breaks paid for 60% of my solar system. The only way it made economic sense.
That's because solar installers bent you over and you didn't even know it was happening. Check out online for system kits equivalent to yours, then figure out the actual installation cost. I'll give you a hint, the largest cost of a solar panel system these days is NOT the solar panels.
...People are gonna claim it's proof that renewables don't work.
As an electrical engineer that works for a company that installs solar systems, they don't work. Well, when you add the government subsidies, that we all pay for in taxes, they're only bad instead of horrible.
Well, that just puts them in the company of oil, gas, and every other government subsidized energy industry then doesn't it?
Assume the average home uses 1MW per month. That's about a 7KW system for 100%. A 7KW system is going to run you around $11K-$12K for materials. If you're lucky enough to be in a state where solar companies aren't running a racket in conjuction with the state government (i.e. you're allowed to mount your own panels and then pay an electrician to connect the system), actual installation cost is a few hours on the roof with a friend or two and maybe a $1K-$2K to state certified electrician. Even without rebates the system easily pays for itself.
If you're unlucky and live in a state where you're required by law to use a "certified installer", even with subsidies you'll be lucky to break even. These "certified installers" bought and paid for this legislation, so you can be sure it isn't going to be good. And it isn't. In my state for example (Maryland), the cost of actual system installation is almost twice as much as the system itself. My last set of quotes I got for installing a system similar to the 7KW I system I mentioned above ranged from $30K to $35K total price (or you could "lease" which screws you over even more, which is why they push that option harder than an inner city crack dealer). That's just plain fucking ridiculous. When I asked for justification for the outrageous installation costs I get the "Installing a solar panel system is very complex and requires deep technical knowledge" line of crap, which I'm quick to point out is nothing but pure bullshit. Mounting panels to a roof requires the deep technical skills of being able to use a measuring tape and a drill. Wiring the panels together requires the vast experience of being able to plug something in. The only part of the system that requires anything beyond ordinary Joe Sixpack skills is hooking up the inverter. I've seen IKEA manuals more complex than solar installation kit instructions.
So if you live in a state where you're actually allowed to mount your own panels, solar works just fine. It'll pay for itself in a few years, and gives you an excuse to have a couple of friends over for an afternoon or two of home improvement. If you live in state where you're required to have a certified installer, then it's a lot more questionable.
...Antarctic ice has been setting maximums.
Even more curious (to me) are the different responses:
- Arctic ice is shrinking: CLEARLY THIS IS GLOBAL WARMING.
- Antarctic ice is growing: (shrug) we really don't have any idea why this is happening I guess we'll just have to figure it out (shrug, again)
Bullshit. Antarctic ice increases were predicted as a result of warming several decades ago. Are you that ignorant of physics? Let me help you then.
Arctic ice is floating in the ocean. Every winter it freezes, every summer it melts. To reduce the amount of ice in the arctic, you need an increase in heat. To greatly reduce the amount of ice in the arctic, you need a lot of heat. Why? Because the salinity in the arctic remains about the same, so any large increase or decrease in ice is a result of disparity in energy.
Antarctic ice is also floating in the ocean. However, there is massive ice sheet on top of a landmass in the center. So ice extent can change by two different causes. The first is the same as the arctic: heat. The second is changes in salinity. Less saline water freezes at higher temperatures.
In the Antarctic, increased heat leads to increase melting of land ice. The influx of fresh water decreases the salinity of the surrounding ocean (observed). A decrease in salinity means ice can form at higher temperatures. Thus, instead of the ice line being capped at 28F, it can push to 29F. As the salinity continues to decrease, the ice line can push even higher until it reaches a maximum of 32F. As temps continue to warm, that 32F line moves further south so the ice extent starts decreasing again.
In short, Antarctic ice is expected to continue expanding until the salinity min/temperature max lines meet, at which point further warming will result in a net decrease of extent due to the increase freshwater runoff from the Antarctic land ice.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...
When the "record" is only 35 years, 'record setting' really isn't that big a deal.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
The opening of the Northeastern passage? A herald of climatological disaster? Well, not so much:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
You're quoting the register. As a reliable scientific source. You're beyond help.
The fact that you jump from "billions" to "nobody" is, essentially, what "histrionic exaggeration" means. There's a huge fucking amount of numbers between 0 and >2,000,000,000.
Just pull out your calculator, for god's sake. There are 7 billions people on the planet at the moment. The odds that at least 25% of them will die (i.e. "billions") because of a projected global increase of 4 Celsius in temperature over a century would require a lot more explanation and hard data than what has been provided so far to be considered anything than ludicrous.
No, it really doesn't. The problem here is that you have absolutely no idea what 4C of global temperature increase represents. That increase in global energy budget makes the world's nuclear arsenal look like a mosquito fart in Cat 5 hurricane. Not being able to see how something of that magnitude couldn't lay waste to a quarter of the world's population (most of which live in poverty with already limited access to food and water) is either abhorrent ignorance on near incomprehensible stupidity.
There's plenty of evidence what havoc even regional climate changes can cause to human civilization, and those were much smaller than what's expected. Entire civilizations have collapsed in just a few years of drought, and you're seriously deluded if you think our modern technology is advanced enough to stave of a multi-year severe drought in a major agricultural region. And that's if we're talking about a place like the US.
Just look at a fucking map and see where the bulk of those 7 billions people live, how the fuck is such a slow change supposed to kill them all?
You're joking right? Here's a simple example. Climate patterns shift making what limited arable land we have into barren dust fields. Food prices skyrocket. Fresh water becomes a scarce commodity. Can you not think of one thing that could happen under those circumstances that would result in lots of people dying? If the famine and disease doesn't kill them, then the inevitable wars will.
This is the kind of bullshit number that people make up as a scare tactic, like"1/3 of women will be raped in their lifetime". It doesn't help take the climate change proponents seriously, it actually make them look like liars to those who are not convinced that there's a problem.
You're a child of the first world who apparently can't see anything beyond your TV screen. Civilization is always 3 meals and 24 hours away from collapse. When people think they have nothing left to lose, then bad shit starts happening.
There's no scare tactic being employed here. Climate projections show a different world emerging as a direct result of our activities. We either take steps now to reduce the extent of the changes and adapt to them or we do nothing until physics rams the inevitable down our collective throats and we reap the consequences.
This kind of tactic is harmful to the cause. The more you try to scare people with end of the world scenarios, the less they listen because this has been tried many times before (acid rains, ozone layer, GMO, etc.) and the world did not end.
It's not a tactic. It's science. Acid rain and ozone depletion were both phenomena that were addressed thanks to science pointing out that those were serious issues and people actually listening. Same thing with asbestos, smoking, leaded gasoline, and a host of other such issues.
Do you want to know what they all had in common though? Big business funding FUD campaigns to discredit the science. It took years to decades before anything was done on most of these issues as a direct result. It's no different with climate change. Hell, even some of the same propaganda companies are being employed. It's like I've been watching the same show on repeat, only with different actors. Ever see the movie "Thank You For Smoking"? It's practically a documentary about these companies.
There was an ATM at my old college campus whose motors would play "da-dadadada-daaaa!" (think superman) before it dispensed money.
I'm looking forward to giant walls and all Muslims wearing yellow crescents with stars so they can be easily identified "for our safety". And those free hoodies they're going to give out. Too bad they're only available in white. Oh, and those lovely pine scented crosses you can burn in your neighborhood to freshen the air. Those'll be nice too.
The modern environment includes dirty weapons delivered in a suitcase, by groups that know a nuclear response is impossible.
You are seriously naive if you think a nuclear responses are impossible. A real nuclear attack on American soil would represent a clear a present danger to millions. The response would be to turn entire regions in the Middle East into glass parking lots. The panicked masses would be begging for it.
Two jets flown into buildings illicited two major military campaigns that are still ongoing to this day. A nuclear attack would be more than enough justification (at least for our people) to launch a nuclear response.
They have little to lose in such an attack, and much to gain. So yes, the chances of a nuclear attack on US soil are greater now.
They have plenty to lose and nothing to gain. The US has more than enough warheads (and I'm sure we could spin production back up if we needed to) to turn any Middle Eastern country and country(s) that support them into irradiated wastelands. You don't cross the nuclear line.
1.Offer tech jobs the pay below the standard of living for the area.
2. Complain you can't find qualified engineers to fill your positions.
3. Get more H1-Bs who don't know any better to fill positions.
4. Profit.
turn off-the-shelf products into tools and devices to harm citizens or disrupt American military operations.
I agree, this is pretty idiotic. Anything can be turned into a weapon. It's like these guys have never seen a Jackie Chan movie.
Or we could compute this another way:
- There is no global warming, and we do nothing, and we all live happily with a strong economy
Except for the resource depletion, pollution etc. that will lead to life sucking and already has led to life sucking for parts of the globe. Our way of life is not sustainable. It never has been, and it's only going to get worse as other countries ramp up and start wanting a piece of "the good life".
Strong economy? You must not be paying attention. Most of the wealth has accumulated in the top few percent of the population. That is an incredibly bad thing to have happen in a consumer driven economy. Worse, outsourcing and automation are tearing chunks out of the middle class. That is also a bad thing for a consumer driven economy. What happens to a capitalist system when the majority of the population no longer has money to spend?
- There is no warming, and we spend $trillions in shifting the economy from cheap oil to expensive wind and solar, life sucks
Where the hell are you getting your numbers from? Renewables are practically on par with fossil fuel sources and , unlike oil, will still be around in 50 years and quite likely will be even cheaper and more efficient. They also pollute a whole lot less.
- There is global warming, and we do nothing, and we end up spending $trillions to adjust to the new climate, life sucks
And who's fault is that? This isn't some new problem that just appeared out of the ether. Scientists have known that global warming would be a result of the massive re-introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere for over a century. We should have started addressing this issue 30 years ago, and every year we delay meaningful action adds even more costs.
No, life won't suck (as much) if we adapt in time. If we don't, then yes life will suck.
- There is global warming, and we spend $trillions to stop it, life sucks
Stop? We are a long ways past being able to "stop" global warming. We could all switch to 100% renewables with 0 carbon emissions and the planet will continue to warm for quite some time. It's like a ball rolling down a hill; it doesn't stop just because it got to the bottom.
This option of yours doesn't exist.
Your information is flawed, and therefore your options and resulting conclusions are flawed. There are no winning scenarios here. We either do nothing and life sucks, or we do something and life sucks less. We've already passed the point of no return. The climate system is already destabilized, and we have neither the technology nor the global will to get it back on track.
This raises the question of climate change. It should be conveyed and understood that we are in a phase of “icehouse earth” that is abnormally cool for the planet. While this phase has lasted the entirety of human civilization and would have drastic consequences for many species should it end, it must be understood that temperatures and CO2 levels have normally been far higher, and the industrial contribution is relatively tiny.
No it doesn't raise a question about climate change. Why do you think humans exist independent of the climate system? The climate switching to the "hothouse" Earth would summarily cause an extinction event with an extremely high likelihood of taking us with it. That's the whole point.
Your argument of "in the past" is completely irrelevant to present day. The current biodiversity (which has been precipitously plummeting as of late) is based on the current climate. Our species depends on the current climate. Our arable regions and crops depend on the current climate. Our coastal regions depend on the current climate. If you want to do a historical comparison, look at what happen whenever there is a significant global climate divergence.
We find that CO2 emissions [during the Cretaceous] resulting from super-plume tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/...
Until the past two centuries, the concentrations of CO2 ... had never exceeded about 280 ppm... Current concentrations of CO2 are about 390 ppm...
Those "super-plumes" were part of a massive extinction event that continued for millions of years. Then it took millions of years for bio-diversity to recovery.Then it millions more for us to climb down out of the trees. During all that time there were occasional extinction events. Finally, 50,000 years ago or so modern humans showed up and were doing doing relatively well until about 10,000-20,000 years ago when (again) another major climate shift occurred and almost wiped us of the face of the Earth.
The relevant point here is that when climate shifts happen, regardless of cause, it is detrimental to the current life on the planet. It is extremely naive to think that our technology has advanced to the point where such climate shifts wouldn't severely impact our species.
“We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present carbon dioxide level. When you have high amounts of carbon dioxide in an atmosphere up to a certain limit, which is considerably higher than it is now, the result is green plants grow very much better... And it is precisely at this time that the recovery from the first dinosaur extinction takes place.
And that took MILLIONS.OF.YEARS. In the meantime, 75% of the species that existed at the time were wiped out. Not to mention the fact that large swaths of the Earth would become inhospitable to human life if temperatures were 6C-8C warmer or the other negative impacts that go along with higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
The rest of your ludicrous arguments all fail for the exact same reason. You seem to think a warmer planet/higher CO2 level is a good thing while completely ignoring the global devastation it took to get to those conditions. That seems to the thing you just don't get. We have not lived in hot house conditions. Our crops have not lived in hot house conditions. The current life on this planet has not lived in hot house conditions.
Even in our own short history, even regional climate disruptions were enough to destroy civilizations. If you think a major climate shift of any kind will simply be just all unicorns and rainbows for the human raise you're either incredibly stupid or incredibly naive.
This is one of the most biased headlines I've seen around recently. This isn't journalism, the headline is literally telling you what to think of the law instead of just stating the facts of it.
The headline correctly describes the law. It IS draconian.